Estimating the Psychological Harm Consequence of Bullying Victimization: A Meta-Analytic Review for Forensic Evaluation

The prevalence of traditional bullying victimization has been estimated at around 36%, while that of cyberbullying has been estimated at 15%. The victimization of bullying brings with it harm to mental health that must be compensated for, after a forensic evaluation, by the aggressor or legal guardian. Thus, a meta-analytic review was undertaken with the aim of knowing the effect of bullying victimization on psychological harm, as well as quantifying the magnitude of the harm and estimating the probability that no harm associated with bullying victimization is generated.

METHOD

A random-effects correlational meta-analysis correcting effect size by sampling error and criterion and predictor unreliability was performed.

RESULTS

The results exhibited a positive (i.e., more victimization and more psychological harm) and significant mean true effect size, implying an average psychological harm associated to bullying victimization of 29.7%. Nevertheless, 26.7% of students victimized by bullying did not develop psychological harm.

CONCLUSIONS

Bullying victimization causes psychological harm, with an average increase in psychological harm associated with bullying victimization of 29.7%.

Duty to Avoid Injury to Oneself and Thereby Psychiatric Injury to Others: Homsi v Homsi [2016] VSC 354, J Forrest J

Tortious liability for causing foreseeable mental harm to others is a complex category of tort law. It continues to evolve as plaintiffs devise novel arguments to test the parameters of what used to be known as pure psychiatric injury law. In Homsi v Homsi [2016] VSC 354, J Forrest J was called upon to rule on whether a mother could sue her deceased son for driving negligently and causing his own death and thereby causing her mental harm. Forrest J declined to permit recovery but in the course of his judgement helpfully analysed the current state of mental harm law in Australia, reviewed the circumstances in which relatives are able to sue one another for mental harm caused by self-injury, and articulated a range of policy considerations in relation to indeterminate liability for defendants. His judgement provides an important opportunity to reflect on the directions in which mental harm law should evolve to arrive at a rapprochement between plaintiffs' reasonable aspirations for recovery and ensuring that the liability of defendants is not unreasonably wide.

Occupational accidents in the Netherlands: incidence, mental harm, and their relationship with psychosocial factors at work

This study investigated the incidence of mental harm due to occupational accidents and the relation between psychosocial factors at work and the occurrence of occupational accidents in the Netherlands for the construction industry and health and welfare sector. Analyses revealed that occupational accidents in the construction industry more often involved physical harm, whereas accidents in the health and welfare sector relatively more often resulted in mental harm, in comparison to other sectors. Results showed that psychosocial factors were associated with occupational accidents in both sectors. For the construction industry, high time pressure and exposure to violence and harassment by colleagues or supervisors were associated with occupational accidents. For the health and welfare sector, low autonomy and exposure to violence and harassment by colleagues or supervisors or by people outside the organization were associated with occupational accidents. The present paper stresses the importance of also taking psychological consequences and psychosocial factors at work into account in assessing the occurrence of occupational accidents.